[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBILITY OF RECORDED VOTE ON CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 
                                   21

  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for the information of the 
Members it is my understanding, and I will be glad to yield to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], but it is my understanding that the 
minority does not expect to ask for a recorded vote when we complete 
the debate on this bill. According to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and others, the suggestion was that would be the case. Do 
we know if it is?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlemen from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that that is the case very 
candidly. No one has said anything to me about it. There could very 
likely be a recorded vote. I hope there is not, if I may candidly say 
so.
  Perhaps the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] could shed further 
light and knowledge on this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] yielding to me, and I frankly think that the 
House has discussed the California desert as much as we need to discuss 
it.
  Obviously we have some problems, but I do not think those problems 
are going to be solved by a vote this evening, but we would very much 
appreciate our colleagues' attendance through the remainder of the 
discussion this evening. I say to my colleagues, ``It is just a delight 
to be with you.''
  Mr. MILLER of California. So Members can go home, and we do not 
expect a recorded vote?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And George and I can get along as usual?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I guess Members will bear with us.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, I call up the 
conference report on the Senate bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands 
in the California desert as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, 
Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 568, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see Proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday, October 4, 1994, at page H10710.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to S. 
21, the California Desert Protection Act.
  I need not tell anyone in this chamber that the process by which we 
have arrived here has been contentious but the conference report itself 
should not be. Several of the most controversial issues have been 
resolved in favor of positions supported by the House during bill 
consideration.
  Among them are: Designation of 1.4 million acre Mojave National 
Preserve allowing hunting; Tauzin ``Private Property'' provision; 
motorized vehicles allowed in wilderness for wildlife management 
purposes; clarification that Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies may use motorized vehicles in wilderness areas; advisory 
committees for Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks, and the 
Mojave National Preserve.
  In addition, the conference report leaves open all roads requested by 
the American Motorcyclists Association, deletes all known active mines 
from park wilderness boundaries and removes mining claims of U.S. 
Borax, Viceroy, and Santa Fe Minerals, among other companies.
  Orginally introduced in 1986, this legislation has been debated for 8 
years. There have been a dozen hearings on this bill in Washington and 
California. Hundreds of amendments have been made since the legislation 
was originally introduced, including more than 60 this Congress.
  Let me take just a few moments to describe the conference report.


                              Wilderness.

  The conference report designates 69 wilderness areas comprised of 
approximately 3.5 million acres to be managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management.


              Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks.

  The conference report expands the existing Joshua Tree and Death 
Valley National Monuments by 200,000 acres and 1.2 million acres 
respectively, and redesignates the areas as national parks.


                            Military Lands.

  The conference report substitute withdraws for 20 years land within 
China Lake Naval Weapons Center and Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery 
Range from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws.


                       Protection of Bodie Bowl.

  The conference report withdraws from the mineral leasing laws all 
lands within the Bodie Bowl in California, as passed by the House.


              Lower Mississippi Delta Region Initiatives.

  The conference report authorizes several studies pertaining to 
transportation, historical and archaeological subjects to stimulate the 
improvement and development of human and physical resources in the 
impoverished Mississippi Delta in several States. This provision was 
originally contained in the Senate, but not in the House-passed bill. 
The conferees deleted those sections of the provision that created a 
new Office of Education within the Department of the Interior, the 
Minority College and University Initiative, scholarship and volunteer 
programs, a Center for Excellence in the Sciences, a Center for 
Aquaculture Studies, and other provisions.
  During committee consideration of the bill earlier this year, any 
member of Committee on Natural Resources were permitted to offer any 
and all amendments. Despite full knowledge that obstructive and 
delaying tactics would be used during floor consideration, I sought and 
open rule with a pre-printing requirement so that, once again all 
amendments could be considered and voted upon. The passage of several 
amendments against the wishes of the committee demonstrate just how 
open that process was.
  The House has spent more than 28 hours, over 8 days on this debate. 
Earlier this week we spent about 5 hours on procedural motions to get 
to conference as members of the minority called 11 recorded votes for 
no reason except to delay consideration and hopefully prevent this 
popular and important legislation from reaching the Presidents desk.
  On two separate occasions--this year by a vote of 298 to 128, and in 
1991 by a vote to 297 to 136--the House supported desert protection 
legislation.
  It should be clear the minority isn't being silenced; it is being 
rejected, and rightly so.
  And not just by the Congress. Public opinion polls in California--
including the desert community--overwhelmingly endorse this bill. 
Newspapers from Los Angeles to San Diego to San Bernardino have not 
only supported S. 21 but have roundly denounced the stall tactics of a 
small band of fervent opponents.
  The conference report was drafted in full accord with House rules and 
procedures and received the support and signature of the majority of 
conferees from five House committees. The conference was publicly 
announced, all conferees were notified, it was attended by members of 
both parties and the press, and the report was filed in accordance with 
House rules.
  Those who protest the conference have protested every aspect of the 
legislative process. Their projects have been considered, and rejected, 
in the Congress and in California. I recognize their opposition to the 
bill; they have tried to persuade a majority of the Congress of their 
cause; and they have been defeated overwhelmingly, repeatedly and on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I also want to address the vitriolic criticism of my management of 
this bill. Let me quote their leader, Mr. Lewis of California, who 
yesterday told the Rules Committee, ``I cannot criticize the Chairman 
for how he has handled himself in this process.'' I appreciate that 
honest statement, and I hope that observation will quiet the personal 
attacks and innuendo which opponents have often employed in attempting 
to delay and defeat the California desert bill.

  The conference report is a balanced and sound blending of the two 
versions of S. 21. That such a reasonable product can emerge from the 
sound and fury of the debate is a high testament to leaders in the 
House, including Congressmen Rick Lehman and Bruce Vento, and to 
Senators Dale Bumpers and J. Bennett Johnston.
  Lastly, we should especially note the remarkable diligence and 
determination of Senator Dianne Feinstein in moving this legislation 
along. It will come as a surprise to no one who has followed this 
debate that much of the opposition to this legislation has been purely 
political in nature, an effort to deny Senator Feinstein the victory 
she has long labored on, and richly deserves to win.
  To those who respond that our action is meant merely to bolster her 
standing, let us recall the dedicated effort to enact the California 
Desert Protection Act began long before Senator Feinstein was a Member 
of the Senate or the sponsor of this bill. It began 8 long years ago, 
with Senator Alan Cranston. And but for the disagreement of two 
Senators from California during those long 8 years, this issue would 
have been resolved, and the desert protected, a long time ago. Senator 
Feinstein provided the pressure to get this job done at long last, and 
she fully deserves the credit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], if I may.
  I would like to clarify an issue relating to railroad rights of way 
in the Mojave National Preserve.
  Section 511 of the conference report speaks to utility rights of way, 
but that section does not include the rights of way of railroads 
through the preserve which have been granted pursuant to the act of 
1875 and other congressional acts that have been utilized for many 
years.
  Section 512 of the conference report requires the Secretary to 
prepare a plan which evaluates the feasibility of using the Kelso Depot 
and existing railroad corridor to provide public access to, and a 
facility for special interpretive, educational, and scientific programs 
within the preserve.
  Therefore, it seems to me that this conference report is not intended 
to and does not in fact limit or restrict any existing railroad rights 
of way granted pursuant to existing law and located within the 
preserve, nor does the conference report limit or restrict the rights 
of way granted to the railroads by Federal acts to maintain, repair, or 
reconstruct their tracks and operations on existing rights of way to 
meet changing demands and circumstances.
  I am advised that the railroads and Bureau of Land Management have 
worked together cooperatively to maintain the necessary level of 
efficient rail operations while protecting the resources of the area 
within the preserve. It is our expectation that the National Park 
Service, as the new land manager in the Mojave, will recognize and 
foster the continuation of this relationship and the programs that have 
developed from it. This is important to the goal of maintaining 
adequate transportation corridors while protecting the resources of the 
preserve.
  I ask the gentleman if that is a correct statement.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my 
colleagues, ``If what happened to me happened to you, you wouldn't 
stand back there being cute.''
  All I am asking for is what I thought was agreed upon on the floor of 
the House.
  There has been some allusion to a 2-minute conference and that 
agreements had been reached prior to that conference.
  On the floor of the House I had one simple amendment to the 
California desert protection bill. It had to do with 1 square mile. I 
attempted to remove 1 square mile for the possibility of building a 
road between a non-wilderness area and the Naval Weapons Center at 
China Lake. It happened across a finger of what was to be wilderness 
under this bill. The reason for the road was to assist in a project 
called Saline, which is a laser utilizing the geothermal power of China 
Lake to reenergize satellites from the Earth so they would not have to 
carry batteries and deal with solar power. It is an innovative, 
exciting, new technology that has not been proven.
  In my negotiations with the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. 
Speaker, we went through seven amendments to try to get one in which I 
could have the possibility of building the road in that area if this 
technology proved reasonable. We finally came to an agreement on the 
seventh version, and in the colloquy on June 10, 1994, after I had 
introduced the amendment to remove that land from wilderness, the 
chairman of the committee offered an amendment which would allow for a 
15-year access if it was desirable to build the road. The fifth version 
of the amendment was ``if it was necessary.'' We felt that 
``desirable'' was more appropriate, and the chairman acquiesced. In a 
colloquy between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vento went on to examine the fact that rather than in 
perpetuity there was an offer of 5 years. We thought 5 years was too 
soon for this 21st century technology, and so we compromised at 15 
years.
  The gentleman from Minnesota said on page H4308:

       Mr. Chairman, the issue before us in terms of the one 
     square mile road is of some concern. The basis for some of 
     the negotiations, I might say, are directly related to the 
     military withdrawal of China Lake which has been a longtime 
     military reservation. The issue in the negotiations went on 
     eliminated from perpetuity to a 15-year time period exactly 
     matches those of what we are advocating as the House position 
     in terms of,

and it says here,

     the eagle pact,

but it is supposed to be Engel act,

     and the withdrawals we have to renew every 15 years. That is 
     the basis of the compromise.

  The 15 years was a compromise since the land withdrawal for other 
areas of China Lake was to be 15 years as well.
  We settled on that. That was included in the House version. In that 
2-minute conference with the Senate that passed a bill which in fact 
provided for a 25-year withdrawal period, the House was 15 years, the 
Senate was 25, as is our fashion, the compromise was a 20-year 
withdrawal period. And in the bill, section 806, ``Duration of 
withdrawals in the conference reports,'' ``the withdrawals and 
reservations established by this title shall terminate 20 years after 
the date of enactment of this title.'' So the compromise between the 
Senate, which was 25, and the House, which was 15, was 20.

                              {time}  1200

  But in the provision that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Minnesota, told me was a compromise to equate itself with the land 
withdrawal from China Lake, which in the House bill was 15, it would 
seem to me if in the House bill it was 15, because it was tied to the 
land withdrawal, if the land withdrawal goes to 20, then the time for 
the road should go to 20. And in reviewing the conference report after 
the fact, we discovered that in fact the time for withdrawal had 
remained at 15.
  So, once again, there is a difficulty in comparing the final work 
product with what I thought was the agreement. My belief is that this 
is an inadvertent error; that where they were doing conforming changes 
in other sections, they did not conform in this section.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the committee if he would be 
willing to engage in a very brief colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, 
based upon the subcommittee chairman's statement in the Congressional 
Record that in fact the compromise was to conform to the time frame 
within the other withdrawal periods, and since the withdrawal period 
had been changed in the conference, does the chairman believe that the 
failure to change the access road for the saline project was in fact an 
inadvertent error and could be conformed by a concurrent resolution?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the 
gentleman will offer, when we have completed the conference report, a 
concurrent resolution to correct this inadvertency.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, if it is in fact then 
nonintentional, it would be a technical correction, and we could 
accomplish it in this fashion. Is the chairman predisposed to telling 
me his willingness to accept the concurrent resolution?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I thought we had already worked it out with the 
Parliamentarian that we could bring it up after this report.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Bringing it up and accepting in my 
vocabulary are two different things.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I see. Like I told the gentleman 45 minutes 
ago, I support the effort to correct this.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I thank the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the 
California Desert proposal, S. 21. Though the number of the bill has 
changed, unfortunately, its content is substantially the same as that 
of H.R. 2929 from the 102d Congress. As a result, I must once again 
express my opposition to this legislation.
  Contrary to what the sponsors of S. 21 would have everyone believe, 
their bill does not represent a compromise, nor does it represent how 
land management decisions should be made. Certainly the concerns of my 
constituents, and of others who actually live, work, and recreate in 
the desert, have not been given adequate consideration in the 
development of this legislation. In fact, all four of the members of 
the California delegation who represent areas directly affected in S. 
21 are opposed to the bill.
  In 1976, Congress designated 12.1 million acres of Bureau of Land 
Management land as the California Desert Conservation Area, and 
directed the agency to study the area for wilderness potential. After 
100 public hearings, 16 environmental impact statements, mineral 
surveys, and 40,000 comments reflecting the views of all who use the 
desert, the BLM recommended that Congress create 2.3 million of these 
acres of wilderness on BLM land. The study concluded that the remainer 
of those acres did not qualify for designation as ``wilderness'' 
because of existing roads and other factors. However, the authors of S. 
21 ignored this study with its numerous environmental impact 
statements, mineral surveys, and thousands of public comments. The 
drafting of S. 21 rejected the very kind of public input decisionmaking 
process that should be employed when major land use decisions are made.
  S. 21 appears to make raw acreage figures, not wilderness values or 
consideration of other interests, the primary determinant for deciding 
on wilderness. There are numerous sections of this bill that 
demonstrate how a public process would better serve our needs. I want 
to mention some of these problems to show what happens when the 
balanced approach is ignored.

  The legislation creates wilderness and park land out of areas I never 
dreamed would be considered wilderness because they include sewage 
ponds, the Coachella water canal, private homes, abandoned trainer 
parks and areas with frequently used roads. When I helped produce the 
current Golden Trout, Machesna Mountain and Los Padres wilderness 
areas, I never thought it appropriate to include these kinds of things.
  The bill creates hundreds of thousands of acres of inholdings--
parcels of private and/or state property within the new wilderness and 
park areas. Inholdings, as anyone experienced with land use legislation 
knows, are a nightmare for the property owner and the government. It 
will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to buy these people out. In 
many instances we do not have Federal land we can exchange for these 
properties.
  This bill also ignores the mineral potential of the California 
desert. Eighty-one different minerals can be recovered from the desert. 
The bill's authors do not even know what they are asking you to give 
up. Of the 7 million acres covered by S. 21, for example, 5 million 
acres have never been surveyed for minerals. Domestic industries that 
rely on minerals found in abundance in the California desert will have 
to seek other sources of supply, both in the United States and abroad.
  For such reasons, S. 21 is not a compromise. It is clearly based on 
acreage rather than a thorough examination of the various interests and 
uses involved in the California desert. The wisdom of Congress' 
decision to mandate the process by which Bureau of Land Management 
conducted an exhaustive, thorough study of the California desert 
clearly shows that listening to all the public's interests and blending 
all of the factors included in the desert's future is the best way to 
reach a lasting agreement.
  In ignoring the congressionally mandated study and forcing S. 21 upon 
the thousands of people who live, work, and recreate in the desert, the 
sponsors of this bill sacrifice the jobs of many of those who rely on 
the desert for their livelihood, and fail to take into account the 
concerns of all groups interested in the desert's future.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McCandless].
  (Mr. McCANDLESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. This is 
by and large a California desert issue, and I will try to focus my 
remarks on the problems S. 21 will cause for the desert and its 
residents. First, however, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a 
portion of this desert bill that creates an Antiquities Survey in the 
Mississippi Delta Region. This begins on page 99 of my copy of the 
conference report, and reads as follows:

         Section 1107--Delta Antiquities Survey, Section (a)(4)

       In addition to the over 100 known ancient archeological 
     sites located in the Delta region * * * such study shall also 
     employ every practical means possible, including assistance 
     from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     (NASA), the U.S. Forest Service and Soil Conservation 
     Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other appropriate 
     federal agencies, to locate and confirm the existence of a 
     site known as Balbansha in southern Louisiana, and a site 
     known as Autiamque in Arkansas. The heads of these Federal 
     agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary as the Secretary 
     requires, on a non reimbursable basis.

  That's correct, ladies and gentlemen. The California Desert Act 
instructs at least five separate Federal agencies to locate the 
legendary site of Balbansha in the Louisiana bayou country. I hope the 
American people are watching this.
  Back to California, the supposed focus of this exercise. There are a 
few points I'd like to make on behalf of the people who are getting the 
short end of the stick from this bill. These are the people who live, 
work, and recreate in the desert, and whose needs and views are ignored 
in this bill. It is important to note that these people have been 
enjoying the desert under the administration of the BLM, as mandated by 
Congress in 1976, and approved in 1980 by then-President Carter's 
Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus. The claim that the desert is 
presently unprotected is a myth.


                             public access

  Since it would create more than 7 million acres of wilderness or 
parkland--roughly the size of the State of Maryland--S. 21 shuts off 
recreational access to untold numbers of citizens, all throughout 
California, who have been enjoying the desert in a responsible manner 
for years, or generations in some cases. Closing off access to this 
much public land is patently unfair to the vast majority of people 
whose opportunities to visit the desert are basically limited to day or 
weekend trips.
  Most people lack the necessary time, resources, or physical abilities 
to enjoy a prolonged hiking or camping excursion into rugged and 
unforgiving desert terrain. For the majority of Californians, their 
desert experience generally consists of utilizing existing roads or 
paths--in vehicles, 4X4 or otherwise--to get to favored areas for day 
hikes, rockhounding, or simply enjoying the vast solitude of the 
desert--see letter No. 1). I and my other desert colleagues have 
received numerous letters opposing S. 21 from outdoors enthusiasts of 
all kinds, including senior citizens and disabled persons--see letter 
No. 2--who will be effectively shut out of much of the desert if this 
conference report is enacted.


                    economic impact in desert areas

  Small towns such as Blythe in Riverside County, Baker in San 
Bernardino County, and Brawley in Imperial County will suffer undue 
economic reverses under S. 21, due to the loss of tourist, vacation, or 
weekend traffic. These activities are the financial linchpin of these 
otherwise isolated or rural areas. Without regular weekend consumption 
of gas, food, lodging, and other goods and services, local income will 
dry up. Many jobs will be lost and not replaced. In some of these 
areas, unemployment has gone as high as 17 percent. Job loss will also 
occur in the fields of manufacturing, retail, and servicing of 
recreational vehicles. The ripple effect of job loss under S. 21 cannot 
be fully charted or measured, but it is considerable.


                         wilderness designation

  Finally, I would like to point out that S. 21 makes a mockery of the 
original 1964 Wilderness Act, which quite clearly defines wilderness 
wilderness as an area ``untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 
visitor who does not remain.'' The Act is supposedly one of our crown 
jewel environmental laws, yet hundreds of thousands of acres of the 
land covered by S. 21 simply do not measure up to that standard. Roads, 
railways, power lines, canals, active and abandoned mines, structures 
and dwellings both occupied and abandoned, and trash dumps are a few 
examples of things found in areas which would be designated as 
wilderness by S. 21. These are well-documented, and I'd be happy to 
share photos with my colleagues. This makes very little common sense in 
terms of sound land management; however, it dovetails quite nicely with 
the nonsensical ``bigger is better'' philosophy of the armchair 
environmentalists who bore this bill out of wedlock.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report on 
S. 21.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, you know, I have only done this a couple of 
times. Being a freshman, I have not taken the opportunity to speak down 
here many times, and I really enjoy the opportunity of speaking. The 
last time I think I spoke, I had the same thing, tail end of a long 
night, and all of you were just waiting to hear what I had to say. You 
treated me the same way.
  Let me just tell you that I was elected as a freshman, and probably 
25 percent of us have been here now less than 2 years. And we came 
here, most of us, to see if we could make a change and to have things 
done a little differently. And when we went to this conference that 
lasted 2 minutes, and when we had a lot of pork added in on the Senate 
side, there was not a lot of change. It seemed to me that after 2 
years, now we are winding this session down, that we really have not 
made a lot of changes. And that is disappointing.
  But there is another election coming up, and maybe there will be a 
lot more new freshmen in the next session, and maybe we can make a 
change.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Representative of the Los Angeles County portion of 
the California desert, I rise in opposition to the conference report to 
S. 21.
  Many of my constituents support reasonable desert protection. 
However, the measure we have before us raises serious funding and land 
management concerns. The conference report also establishes a 
potentially dangerous and open-ended commitment of scarce Federal 
dollars. If enacted, this legislation could conceivably cost billions 
of dollars, not millions, but billions.
  Mr. Speaker, if Congress enacts a desert protection bill, it must 
approve a measure that prevents individual landowners from Federal 
takings of private property while reflecting the years of analysis, 
deliberation, and hearings conducted by the Bureau of Land Management. 
Since the conference report fails to achieve these basic objectives, I 
will oppose its passage.
  Furthermore, I want to advise my House colleagues of provisions in 
the conference report added by the other body which have nothing to do 
with protecting the California desert. I am referring to language 
containing initiatives concerning the Lower Mississippi Delta Region 
which have not been considered through the normal legislative process, 
nor have they been the subject of any debate in the House of 
Representatives. For example, one section in the bill requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish three centers for aquaculture in 
specific cities in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. The conference 
report also directs the Federal Government to study the establishment 
of cultural centers, heritage centers, structural surveys, and a music 
heritage program in the Mississippi Delta Region. Finally, the report 
establishes a national historical park in Louisiana dedicated to the 
exhibition and preservation of jazz music. None of these initiatives 
has been considered or debated by Members of the body.
  Mr. Speaker, 25 percent of the Members in this Chamber, including 
myself, were elected within the last 2 years. When we campaigned, we 
promised that we would put a stop to business as usual, and we have an 
opportunity to do that tonight. I was appointed as a House conferee on 
this legislation, and when I arrived at the conference I was stunned to 
find out that it was over--it had only lasted 2 minutes. In fact, the 
conference report had already been written and Members, especially 
those like myself who represent the desert, did not have an opportunity 
to influence the contents in this legislation.

  I will conclude by saying to Members who vote for the conference 
report that by doing so you are saying to your constituents that you 
support the other body's pork projects, support 2-minute conference 
committee's, and support business as usual.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, The Los Angeles Times referred to the five 
of us, the five desert Congressmen who have fought the last several 
months and been dragged kicking and screaming to this point, as the 
five desert diehards. We just gave the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McCandless] a diehard battery the other day in acknowledgment of all 
the work he did on behalf of his constituents who are being locked out 
of his portion of the desert.
  Let me just say to my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
McKeon], the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas], with his great sense of humor, and the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan], let me just say to my colleagues, you did a hell of a 
job, and you represented your constituents in the greatest sense of the 
term, and we will still have a chance of this bill not passing. God 
bless you. Great work.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of time on this side to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Vento. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. 
I congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the great 
staff we have on the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 21, The 
California Desert Protection Act.
  It has taken us some time to get to this point, but many recent votes 
have conclusively shown that the House strongly supports this vital 
land conservation measure, just as it has since the House first passed 
a similar bill in 1991.
  As others have noted, this is a very important measure, one which 
will be remembered long after the world has forgotten many of the 
things that we have done here in the past 2 years.
  This bill will make the largest additions to the National Park System 
and National Wilderness Preservation System of any bill since President 
Carter signed into law the Alaska Lands Act in 1980, thus giving 
protection to a great diversity of priceless resources and values of 
great national and world significance.
  Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen from California, Chairman Miller and 
Mr. Lehman, the author of the House bill, deserve the thanks of the 
House for their leadership on this issue. Special recognition must also 
go to the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, for all 
that she has done to make it possible for this bill to reach this 
point.
  After we pass this conference report, Mr. Speaker, it remains only 
for the Senate to do likewise and for President Clinton to cap a decade 
of dedicated work by signing the bill into law.
  I am proud that as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests, and Public Lands, I have had an opportunity to participate in 
the numerous hearings, including field hearings in California 
concerning this matter and to have been able to play a role in shaping 
this historic California desert legislation.
  There are specifics in the conference report that I find less than 
totally satisfactory--including the provisions related to grazing in 
the Death Valley and Mojave areas, the over-broad language related to 
management of fish and wildlife in wilderness, and the unnecessary 
sweeping provisions concerning overflights.
  In addition, I note that the Senate found it necessary to insist on 
certain provisions dealing with the Lower Mississippi Delta Regional 
Commission, and for establishment of the New Orleans Jazz National 
Historical Park. The Jazz Park provisions implement a recommendation of 
the National Park Service, based on a congressionally mandated study, 
on which hearings have been held in both the House and the Senate.
  Do I support every provision in the conference report? No, I don't--
but I support the conference report.
  The conference report is a compromise, which is the proper result of 
a conference, and the compromises on the California Desert do reflect 
the will of the House.
  In fact, even if we had been given formal instructions, I do not 
think that we could have produced a conference report that more closely 
resembled the House's version of the California Desert Protection Act.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a conference report that deserves the 
approval of the House, and I urge all Members to join in voting for its 
adoption.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman].
  (Mr. LEHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, having worked on this legislation for 8 
years, this is a very proud night. I rise in support of the 
legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to make the following points. The 
bill only authorizes funds, which are subject to pay-as-you go 
provisions and must go through the appropriations process. CBO 
estimates 100 million, 75 percent of which is for important roads which 
are critical for economic development of this region.
  Roads have been neglected in the Delta in large part because the area 
is so poor. It did not participate in the Highway Trust Fund program--
cities did not pay into the trust fund, and then did not receive funds 
back for new roads.
  This is not ``pork''--this is wise investment. It is a region rich 
with resources and heritage but lacking the infrastructure to be more 
productive. With this small investment we can begin to build up the 
region which will then contribute its resources to the nation.
  Targeting a specific area for investment is not unusual or unwise. As 
a nation, we have an obligation to lift up those areas that have been 
left behind. Historically, the Delta has been denied the investment 
other areas have received. The Cultural Centers, research grants for 
HBCU's, and music heritage will support an area that is centered near 
the ``poorest city in America'' as cited by Time magazine's article on 
Lake Providence.
  Provisions of the Delta Act implement several recommendations of the 
blue-ribbon Delta Development Commission, are non-controversial, and 
very important to the Delta.
  To respond to the point that the roads money should go through 
committee--the Public Works Committee signed-off on the Conference 
report because of the tremendous need in the Delta and because the 
project is well-developed.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. While I still oppose S. 21 because of its 
overall effect on Californians who live in the desert, I do want to 
note that conferees accepted my June 10, 1994 amendment to the Argus 
Range wilderness provisions so that a roadway facilitating development 
of a new laser technology can be built in the future.
  Under the bill, the Secretary of Interior may grant a right of way to 
build a road if the Secretary of the Navy grants permission to use 
lands withdrawn for Navy use in the Naval Air Warfare Center at China 
Lake and the station and ranges it occupies in California. Formerly 
known as the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake enjoys a well-deserved 
reputation for having high quality research teams, excellent test 
ranges and a dedication to high performance. The amendment, in section 
102 of the bill, makes it possible for these same resources to be 
brought to bear on an exciting new technology.
  The amendment will help develop a Space Energy Laser (SELENE) 
facility on a China Lake test range adjacent to the Argus Wilderness, 
creating a brand new industry. SELENE, which would be developed under a 
public and private consortium, would utilize laser technology to beam 
power into space and power satellites. Because of the right focus 
achievable with laser technology, SELENE would permit smaller solar 
arrays to be used on satellites, saving as much as $72,000 per pound of 
eliminated weight in reduced satellite launch costs. The new technology 
would permit better maneuvering systems too, another means of extending 
satellites' useful lives.
  China Lake is the best place for this project because this part of 
the desert has the best weather available. China Lake commonly has 260 
days per year of clear skies which would facilitate power beaming. It 
even has a developed geothermal energy site nearby that can provide 
power for the free electron laser to be used in this project.
  The amendment makes a right of way possible to access lands being 
withdrawn for Navy use by other portions of this bill. That right of 
way can significantly reduce the costs of entering this new field by 
perhaps as much as $3 million. The amendment does not overturn other 
environmental laws, just preserves an option that could lead this 
country into an exciting new technology. I am pleased that the 
importance of this new technology has been recognized by the House when 
members voted 396 to 1 to adopt my amendment last June and by the 
conferees who included this provision in the final bill.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 21, The 
California Desert Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to give 
final approval to this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides wildlife habitat, protects natural 
resources, and creates recreational opportunities while protecting the 
rights of private property owners and preserving hunting, fishing, and 
gaming opportunities in the desert.
  After some seven legislative days of consideration and more than 24 
hours of floor debate, this legislation passed this House in July with 
298 votes;--that's nearly 70% of this Chamber voting for this bill. 
Today the bill returns in virtually identical form. There is no reason 
why this bill should not receive quick approval again by this House.
  This is an important piece of legislation. It is a well-balanced, 
reasonable approach to environmental protection that will not result in 
economic dislocation. The compromise struck during those many hours of 
sometimes painfully detailed debate under an open rule deserves the 
support of this House.
  This legislation is the most significant land conservation measure 
since the 1980 Alaskan Lands Act. The conference report creates two 
national parks--the Death Valley and the Joshua Tree national parks--
and one national preserve--the Mojave National Preserve. The wilderness 
areas within the parks and the preserve will be managed by the BLM in 
accordance with existing laws.
  The California Desert Protection Act will preserve the unrivaled 
scenic, geologic, and wildlife resources associated with these 
distinctive desert landscapes. These newly designated areas are a 
public resource of extraordinary value for this and future generations.
  What makes this legislation exceptional is that it protects the 
environment without diminishing the private property rights of land 
owners in and near the park. Under this bill, the private property 
within the parks' boundaries is not subject to regulations applicable 
to federal lands. Use and enjoyment of private property is not 
restricted. Private In-holders may construct, modify, repair, replace 
or improve their single family residences.
  The rights of private land owners are also respected in the land 
acquisition provisions of this bill. The bill relies heavily upon 
willing sellers and land exchanges to acquire any additional lands. 
Private land owners' access to their properties is protected. In 
addition, the property appraisal provisions require property owners to 
be compensated at the fair market value of the property without 
endangered species present. In other words, the government pays for any 
loss of value due to endangered species.
  The conference report also reflects the compromises reached on the 
issues hunting and grazing. Under the amendment offered in this House 
by Mr. LaRocco and others, the East Mojave area will become a national 
preserve in which hunting, fishing, and gaming will be allowed. Hunting 
and fishing opportunities in the Mojave National Preserve are 
traditional uses that will continue under the bill. In similar fashion, 
the grazing compromise allows for continuation of existing grazing 
practices.
  Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of the Desert Protection Act I 
am pleased that we will finally have the chance to approve this 
important legislation. This balanced and reasonable compromise forged 
from hours of debate deserves the support of the Members of this House. 
I ask my colleagues for an aye vote.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________